JUDGMENT : R.N. Biswal, J. - The Petitioners have challenged the order dated 18.11.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Chandikhol in C.S. No. 63 of 2008 refusing to accept the Additional Written Statement filed by them. 2. The facts leading to filing of this writ petition in nut shell are that opp. party as the Plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for permanent injunction against the Petitioners (Defendants) to restrain them from coming over the campus of IITR, along with a petition under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC giving rise to I.A. No. 68 of 2008 for temporary injunction. The said Misc. case having been dismissed on 16.9.2008, the opp. party preferred misc. appeal No. 41 of 2008 before learned Ad-hoc Addl. District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Jajpur, which was also dismissed on 6.3.2009. 3. Being aggrieved with the said order, the opp. party preferred W.P.(C) No. 6978 of 2009 before this Court which was disposed of on 19.5.2009, with a direction to maintain status quo with regard to management of the institution. It was also directed that the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Chandikhol would dispose of the suit expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of communication of that order. On 10.9.2009 opp. party filed a petition before the Trial Court under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of the pleading, which was allowed on 15.9.2009 subject to payment of cost of Rs.300/-. The Petitioners challenged the aforesaid order in W.P.(C) No. 14408 of 2009, before this Court but it was dismissed vide order dated 3.11.2009. Two days thereafter i.e. on 6.11.2009, the Petitioners filed additional written statement along with a petition for condonation of delay. Since the trial Court did not accept the additional written statement, the Petitioners have preferred the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that in W.P.(C) No, 6978 of 2009 vide order 19.5.2009 this Court directed the trial Court to dispose of the s.uit expeditiously preferably within a period of four months. But the opp. party filed the amendment petition under order 6 Rule 17 CPC on 10.9.2009, which, on being allowed, the Petitioners challenged the said order before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 14408 of 2009. The said writ petition was dismissed on 3.11.2009. But the opp. party filed the amendment petition under order 6 Rule 17 CPC on 10.9.2009, which, on being allowed, the Petitioners challenged the said order before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 14408 of 2009. The said writ petition was dismissed on 3.11.2009. On 6.11.2009 Aditional Written statement was filed before the trial Court, but it was not accepted. The sequence of events shows that the Petitioners were not negligent in filing the additional written statement. They waited for the result in W.P.(C) No. 14408 of 2009 and as soon as the writ petition was dismissed, they filed additional Written statement. So, the trial Court ought not to have refused to accept the additional written statement. 5. On the contrary, learned-counsel appearing for the opp. party contended that several opportunities were given tp the Petitioners to file additional written statement. Ultimately the suit was adjourned to 21.10.2009 as last chance for filing additional written statement, on which date the Petitioners filed a time petition. The trial Court rejected the petition on the ground that there was no supporting document for allowing time. Since the suit was a targeted one and one witness from the side of the opp.party had already been examined and Anr. witness had already filed evidence on affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC the trial Court rightly refused to accept the additional written statement by condoning the delay reviewing the order dated 21.10.2009. 6. Admittedly after the amendment petition was allowed and the consolidated amendment petition was filed, the pettieners were given several chances to file additional written statement, but as they had challenged the order allowing the amendment petition before this Court, as it appears that they waited for the result in the writ petition and after the writ petition was dismissed, within two days thereafter, they filed the additional written statement. So, this Court feels that the writ petition should be allowed and the trial Court should be directed to accept the additional written statement of the Petitioners with cost. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the trial Court is directed to accept the additional written statement of the Petitioners subject to payment of cost of Rs.1000/- to the opp. party within 15 days of receipt of this order. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the trial Court is directed to accept the additional written statement of the Petitioners subject to payment of cost of Rs.1000/- to the opp. party within 15 days of receipt of this order. It is made clear that after acceptance of the additional written statement if the Petitioners file a petition to recall P.W.1 for his cross examination, the same shall be allowed. Final Result : Allowed